Now wait a minute. Islamic supremacists, as well as their media enablers, constantly tell us that Muslims are outraged by Western immodesty and licentiousness, whereas they are all-holy, pure, spotless, and above all that. And so how is it that Khalil Jamil's behavior doesn't constitute sexual harassment just because he came from a "restrictive Muslim background"? It looks much more likely to me that he believes all non-Muslim women are whores who will have sex with anyone and everyone, and was trying to get in on the action.
More in the mind-numbing and endless March of Dhimmitude in Absurd Britannia: "Pharmacist asked colleague about her favourite love-making position 'because he came from a restrictive Muslim background,'" by Kerry Mcqueeney in the Daily Mail, August 31 (thanks to David):
A pharmacist who made crude remarks to three of his female colleagues has escaped with a warning after a panel heard he came from a 'restrictive Muslim background' and was unaware of the offence his conduct had caused.
Khalil Jamil asked one of the women about her favourite love-making position and quizzed another about the mating habits of her horses - but a professional panel ruled his behaviour was not sexually motviated [sic].
The General Pharmaceutical Council panel found Jamil acted inappropriately by making the comments and standing too close to his assistants.
However, they accepted that his background in a strict Muslim community meant he was unfamiliar to working in such an open environment with women and his basic social skills meant he lacked understanding of appropriate conduct.
Note the paternalism. Once again we see the hidden ethnocentrism of the avowedly multicultural.
As the remarks were not sexually motivated the panel cleared Jamil of misconduct and gave him an official warning.
It also took into consideration the fact that Jamil had remedied his actions by attending a 'dignity at work' course.
Panel chairman Patrick Malmo QC said: ‘He felt the source of this behaviour in 2009, was that he comes from a very restrictive background, with little social life, and none at all outside of his own community.
‘He lacked social skills, and had little knowledge of how one should be when working with colleagues.
‘He was unable to distinguish between friendliness and over familiarity.’
Mr Malmo added: ‘We do not think there is a serious risk of this kind of conduct being repeated.
‘Although we do not find the registrant impaired, we have the ability to issue a warning, and given the circumstances of this case, we believe it is necessary to do so.’
In a statement read to the hearing one of Jamil’s colleagues, referred to as CH, said she was working with Jamil at the Cooperative Pharmacy in Fauldhouse, West Lothian, in July 2009, when he asked: ‘Do you have a boyfriend? Do you want a boyfriend?’
She said: ‘Whenever it went quiet he came back to me and stood close again. He asked me if I was into sports, I said “No”.
‘He said he was into boxing and said feel my stomach. He grabbed my wrist and tried to get me to touch his stomach.'
Jamil had told the hearing that he had no desire to be in a relationship with the woman saying: ‘I suppose I was showing off, at the time, that I train, I work hard.'
He made similar remarks to another assistant, referred to only as SS, while he was working as a locum at a Morrisons pharmacy in St Andrews, Fife, in November 2009.
The pharmacist approached her while she was at the computer at and asked her if she had a boyfriend and how she liked to have sex with him.
A similar incident occurred the following week in which he put his arms around her waist.
A third woman, known as SR, was working at the same pharmacy when Jamil stood close to her that as she bent down to pick up some prescriptions, she could not help but back into him.
She added that he had asked if getting her horses’ castrated had affected the animals’ sex drives and whether it would have the same effect on a man.
He had admitted that all the incidents took place but denied any possible sexual motivation.
Speaking afterwards Graham Edwards, said on behalf of Mr Jamil: ‘I think the panel’s decision was overall correct....
‘The duration of the inquiry into these matters, being three years, has caused Mr Jamil and his family to be emotionally damaging, at a great deal financial of cost.’
The poor fellow! "Islamophobia" claims yet another victim!